Differing opinions on conclusions and semantics? I find it odd that after you tried to make a paper say something it did not that you would then post something dwelling so much on semantics and opinion of meaning as evidence to support something else.

Umm, Wayne, there is a BIG difference with saying that human activity has a significant influence, and saying that human activity is the dominant cause.

Too bad the difference was between "significant" and "major" then, wasn't it.

No, the difference was between a major cause and significant contributing factor. There is a big difference between the two phrases.

Differing opinions on conclusions and semantics? I find it odd that after you tried to make a paper say something it did not that you would then post something dwelling so much on semantics and opinion of meaning as evidence to support something else.

Umm, Wayne, there is a BIG difference with saying that human activity has a significant influence, and saying that human activity is the dominant cause.

Too bad the difference was between "significant" and "major" then, wasn't it.

Snowy123 wrote:

No, the difference was between a major cause and significant contributing factor. There is a big difference between the two phrases.

A contributing factor is much different than a 'major cause.' Significant can also be subject to the scientist's interpretation of what significant actually means.

The author of this post interviewed skeptical climate scientists on this issue, and some would pick human activity as being a significant contributing factor, because significant is subject to one's interpretation of what significant actually means, since how much of a contribution for human activity to be a significant factor was not specified in the paper.

The major problem with this study is the second question. It is not phrased properly. In fact, the phrasing is so poor that I consider the entire study flawed because of it. There are multiple problems with the phrasing, so let me break them down.

1. The phrase "human activity"

Human activity comprises numerous actions which can affect the climate other than greenhouse gases. Agricultural changes and deforestation are two influences that come to mind. Now, any respondent who believes that ANY human activity can change the climate must answer yes to this question.

The problem with this is obvious. What makes something significant? If 5% of recent temperature change is caused by mankind, is that significant? How about 10%? There is no context for answering the question. There is no way of knowing whether or not the respondents consider human activity the primary factor in temperature change.

A better phrasing would be:

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?

Richard Lindzen (from the post)

As you know, polling is a dicey business. With respect to your first question, my answer to (1) is probably, but the amount is surprisingly small -- suggesting that global mean temperature anomaly is not a particularly good index. My answer to (2) would be yes, but dependent on what is meant by significant. As to your second question, I agree that one can answer yes without any implication of alarm. Remember, according to the IPCC, we have already reached a level of radiative forcing that is almost as large as one would expect from a doubling of CO2. Even is climate sensitivity were 0.5C (which is generally considered to be of no concern) we would still be making a significant contribution to the small observed 'warming.'

John Christy (from the post)

It was not phrased properly. For example someone might think that 10 percent of any warming constitutes a "significant" contribution, and so would answer yes to that question, even though the proportion of warming due to any human effect might in fact be small.

Patrick Michaels (from the post)

Anyone with experience in survey development (and I know people who do this) would recognize the hidden motive here. It is telling that such a paper would be accepted with such poor design and such a foregone conclusion.

Yes, but since you ignored the whole phrase, which was SIGNIFICANT contributing factor this is nothing but a strawman.

The two phrases are significantly different only if you ignore things like the dictionary and thesaurus.

Quote:

Significant can also be subject to the scientist's interpretation of what significant actually means.

So can "major", but we were dealing with what was actually presented and not what you might interpret the "actual" meaning to be.

Quote:

The author of this post interviewed skeptical climate scientists on this issue, and some would pick human activity as being a significant contributing factor, because significant is subject to one's interpretation of what significant actually means, since how much of a contribution for human activity to be a significant factor was not specified in the paper.

If one is the expert in the field, as is supposedly the point of contention, the opinion of that person on significance should not be that far from any other similar scientist. The point of a poll is generally to compare opinions.

Quote:

The major problem with this study is the second question. It is not phrased properly. In fact, the phrasing is so poor that I consider the entire study flawed because of it. There are multiple problems with the phrasing, so let me break them down.

This would be .... an OPINION?!?

Quote:

1. The phrase "human activity"

Human activity comprises numerous actions which can affect the climate other than greenhouse gases. Agricultural changes and deforestation are two influences that come to mind. Now, any respondent who believes that ANY human activity can change the climate must answer yes to this question.

The problem with this is obvious. What makes something significant? If 5% of recent temperature change is caused by mankind, is that significant? How about 10%? There is no context for answering the question. There is no way of knowing whether or not the respondents consider human activity the primary factor in temperature change.

A better phrasing would be:

Do you think that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor (50% or more) in changing mean global temperatures?

The best option would br for them to perform their own poll, would it not? It is easy to be critical of the work if one never does any themselves.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Interesting that geologists who support the AGW theory are considered to be earth scientists, (which sounds more credible in the field of climate change) and yet geologists skeptical of AGW are not?

An Earth scientist is not always an expert on climate change, but an expert on climate change would be an Earth scientist.

If you looked at the threas you would note you had made the claim there were no scientists other than one and I was pointing out the other scientists involved. There was no mention of climate specialists in that discussion.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein